5 A SWOT ANALYSIS OF THE PROCESS

In its ultimate form, architecture gives an organization the power to respond

quickly and effectively to change. The capacity to respond effectively requires a
combination of thought and action. Two instruments, the Quadrant Model and
the DYA Model, can analyze an organization’s capabilities in this regard.

5.1 Things Are Not All Right at B-Sure Bank

“I believe wholeheartedly in the importance of architecture,” said Peter Wilder,

one of the directors at B-Sure Bank, “But I see too little bang for my buck. The
vision document that you drafted is clear. I back it entirely. Still, you’ve been
working on it for nearly a year. You’ve assembled a good team of 15 architects.
The service architecture that your people have created is good. Yet, although the
diagrams are posted on all the walls, I don’t see any further effects. I recently spoke
with a project manager who knew the diagram well but didn’t know what he was
supposed to do with it. When I discussed this with another project manager, I
heard the same story. I am starting to have misgivings. Or is that just me?”
Arnold Hedges, now the head of the new Architecture department, did not
know how to respond. He certainly understood the feeling of unease that his
boss was having. His team was working extremely hard, but things were getting
bogged down somewhere. Everyone appeared to be positive about the architecture
concept, and people were even eager to talk about it. So why did he have the
feeling that the pay-off was not as big as it should be? Was enough attention being
paid to the project managers? Or was it just a question of time?
“Give me another six months,” he appealed to Peter. “We just require more
time. It’s an adjustment for the organization as well. We still have to learn how to
adopt architectural thinking in a truly effective manner.”

57
58 Building an Enterprise Architecture Practice

5.2 Architectural Practice: A Question of Thought and

Action

Developing architectures that are appropriate and in sync with business goals
is not enough. For the organization to put architecture into effective practice,
it must on the one hand be integrated into a business strategy. On the other
hand, architectural thinking must be incorporated into projects and operations. If
equal amounts of consideration are given to both requirements, good things will
happen, but any feeling that architectural practice does not do what it is supposed
to likely indicates an imbalance between theory and practice.
A SWOT analysis of architectural practice provides some insight into this
situation and lays the foundation for improvement. As a result, the organization
gains a better hold on the situation, something more than the mere hope of
improvement in six months.
Two instruments can be used to sketch a clear picture of how the architectural
processes in an organization are actually doing. Both analyses can be done in a
short time.

− The Quadrant Model is employed, especially at the management level, in

order to quickly represent the state of an organization’s architectural practices.

− The DYA Model allows the stakeholders in the architecture to consider the
extent to which the architectural processes have been effectively implemented.

5.3 The Quadrant Model: A Quick Scan of Thought and

Action

The Quadrant Model, introduced in Wagter et al. [25] and reproduced in

Figure 5.1, has proven to be a tool that swiftly indicates the extent to which the
architecture is aligned with the business strategy and the degree to which it is
incorporated into projects and operations. The positioning of the organization
in the Quadrant Model provides an initial assessment of the situation and offers
a basis for further progress. It is primarily a communications tool meant to
demonstrate why certain practices occur in the way that they do, and it points to
improvements that can be made.
The Quadrant Model simultaneously measures the relationship between two
dimensions:
 Chapter 5: A SWOT Analysis of the Process 59

Figure 5.1 Quadrant Model

− The level of architectural thinking indicates the degree to which the upper
strata of the organization’s business and IT domains share an architectural
vision and appreciate the importance of architectural practices.

− The degree of integration within the organization reveals the extent to which
architectural thinking is embodied in the organization’s daily processes.
Architecture lives to the extent that there is an awareness of it on the work
floor and it is incorporated into daily practices.

Plotting these dimensions along vertical and horizontal axes produces four
quadrants:

1. Organizations in the losing quadrant have a low level of architectural thinking

and a low degree of organizational integration. Architectural practices do not
have any real effect on this organization.

2. Organizations in the barrier quadrant have taken architectural measures but

in a fragmented manner and not on the basis of a shared organization-wide
vision.

3. Organizations in the isolation quadrant are fully convinced, right up to the

most senior levels, of the importance of architecture. The architecture is clearly
related to business goals. Architectural practices are, however, insufficiently
embedded within the organization’s processes of change.
60 Building an Enterprise Architecture Practice

4. Organizations in the enabling quadrant have integrated their architecture

and demonstrate a high level of architectural thinking. In this quadrant,
organizations are free to work on continued improvement and renewal.
When the level of architectural thinking is high, the organization has a clear
vision of what the architecture is meant to accomplish. Architectural thinking
is closely related to strategic thinking, and architectural content is geared to the
business strategy. The relationship between architectures and business goals is
clear. There is a clear process for architectural development and management.
Architecture is not just something for the IT department, but involves business
and IT together. The entire issue is well conceptualized.
When organizational integration is high, the organization “works under
architecture.” The architecture is not a paper tiger but a factor with significance
for projects and operations. Managers and employees are aware of the architecture,
use it when making decisions and adopt its frameworks. Architectural practice is
a part of the organizational culture. It is as natural as project planning and system
documentation.
Table 5.1 contains an Architectural Review, a simple test to determine the
quadrant in which an organization is located. The first six statements in the table
measure the level of architectural thinking. Is architectural development truly
driven by business goals? Is the architecture up to date? And is sufficient attention
paid to the architectural development process? The last six statements measure
the degree of organizational integration. Is the architecture accessible? Do projects
comply with the architecture? Does architecture play a role in decision making?
The number of times statements 1 through 6 are answered “yes” indicates
the vertical position in the model. The number of “yes” answers to statements 7
through 12 reveals the horizontal position.

5.4 Isolation: Too Much Thought, Too Little Action

Organizations in the isolation quadrant have a good conception of architecture.

They have a clear vision of its importance and purpose. Architectural choices
are directly related to the business strategy and goals. The architects are strongly
focused on the business managers and strategists in the organization; they are on
easy terms with each other. The architects stand on equal footing with business.
Briefly stated, everything runs smoothly insofar as content is concerned. However,
the architecture is not incorporated into projects and operations. The architects
do not bother to ensure that the architectural principles are adopted in concrete
 Chapter 5: A SWOT Analysis of the Process 61
Table 5.1 Architectural Review
No. Statement Yes/No

1 In our organization, architecture is a part of the management agenda Yes/No

2 A new version of our organization’s architecture has been issued in recent years Yes/No
3 Architects and business representatives are in regular contact with each other Yes/No
4 I think that at least half of the architectural initiatives in our organization have a Yes/No
business sponsor
5 I know which director is responsible for architecture Yes/No
6 Our architectural process is regularly evaluated Yes/No
7 I think that at least a quarter of the organization has immediate access to the most Yes/No
recent version of the architecture
8 In our organization, architecture plays an important role in decisions about Yes/No
projects
9 An architect is involved in at least half of the projects at our organization Yes/No
10 Our architects have a customer-focused attitude Yes/No
11 Completion of a project is only acknowledged after an architectural review has Yes/No
been performed on the project
12 Non-compliance with architecture results at least in being asked to justify the Yes/No
non-compliance

Figure 5.2 Positioning an organization in the Quadrant Model

62 Building an Enterprise Architecture Practice

projects. They simply assume that the projects will comply with the architecture.
The nitty-gritty details are typically left up to the project teams.
The great danger here is that project teams must use a disproportionate
amount of effort to satisfy the architectural requirements. In most cases like this,
so much effort is demanded that the sponsor and project manager privately agree
to recognize architecture’s failings and to rely on other resources in finding a
workable solution.
These are the organizations where architects appear to sit in those well-known
ivory towers. The organizations know what they want but fail to achieve it.

The information manager at a lease company has come to the conclusion that
an architecture is needed to manage all the changes that are about to happen.
He invites an architect to come and discuss how best to achieve this. During
the interview, the architect asks if this is the first attempt at architecture.
The information manager answers that something was indeed done by his
predecessor but that was a couple of years ago now. At that time, a specialist was
brought in for the task, and an architectural model was made. The diagrams
are still hanging in the hall. And there has to be a document somewhere. But
honestly speaking, he is not abiding by it in any way, and the same goes for his
employees. In any case, he cannot find anyone who knows its specifics. To him,
it seemed better to start all over again.
In concluding that it is better to make a new beginning, the information
manager is probably right. Since the developers of the architecture had left the
company, it would be difficult to inject any new life into the existing documents
– not to mention that they are most certainly out of date. The entire process
will therefore have to be gone through again with the current employees and
with an eye to today’s business strategy.
If the information manager wants to prevent the new architecture from
suffering the same fate, he will have to approach things in a different manner.
With so many changes of the guard, it is no longer clear how things were
done in the past, but it looks like a great deal of attention was paid to the
composition of the architecture’s content without considering how it would be
incorporated into the organization. The architecture was never converted into
action. This time, the information manager must endeavor not only to develop
architecture but also to devote at least as much time and effort to the integration
of architectural thinking throughout the organization.
 Chapter 5: A SWOT Analysis of the Process 63

5.5 Barrier: Restricted to Efficiency

The barrier quadrant involves the opposite. The architecture is a living component
in projects, but there is no connection to the strategic vision. The architecture
stems from a sense of method and professionalism among the designers and
developers. It is primarily aimed at streamlining projects as well as integrating
applications and technology. Standardization is an important element but is often
limited to a single department. Because the architecture is, in a sense, created from
the bottom up, a situation might arise where several competing architectures are
not in alignment with each other. And since no control is being exercised from a
top-down business viewpoint, it is difficult to justify the architectural choices that
have been made. As a consequence, discussions about the correct architectural
principles can be lengthy and difficult to resolve. An organization can find itself
positioned in the barrier quadrant as a result of a merger in which each party
throws its own architecture into the pot. In such a case, the development of a
collective top-down vision will be the only way to unify these architectures.
Organizations in the barrier quadrant run the risk of becoming fixated on
continuously improving efficiency without improving effectiveness. Things are
done well but it remains unclear whether the right things are being done.

The directors of a retail organization have decided that the organization needs
an architecture to coordinate its operations. A consultant is engaged to oversee
it. In interviews with employees, the consultant notes their slightly surprised
reactions. The employees do not understand the decision. Haven’t they had
architecture for a while? However, further questioning reveals that each employee
has a different notion of what architecture is. For one person, it is a data model
set up a few years ago for the core system. For another, it is a number of design
principles that were established in a department sometime in the past. A third
individual believes that an architecture might exist but it is not suited to the
organization’s new IT developments, so this employee is busy drafting principles
to guide the new developments.

The above scenario is typical of the barrier quadrant. Architectural principles

are established in all sorts of places based on individual skills and applied to
the immediate environment. However, there is no coherence among the various
models, rules and guidelines.
A good first step in such a case would be to map the various architectures
that already exist – by positioning them in the DYA architecture framework,
for example. A second step would then establish the connection to the business
64 Building an Enterprise Architecture Practice

strategy. Inconsistencies and principles that are no longer supportive of the

business goals would subsequently be eliminated. In this way, principles that
are demonstrably up to date would receive stronger support. If the organization
wishes to employ architecture to its fullest potential, it should expend energy in
initiating dialogue between business and IT. Such a dialogue would develop a
central vision as a basis for steering architectural developments.

5.6 Losing: The Case for Architecture

In the losing quadrant, architecture is not being given any consideration at all.
Some individuals may be aware of the importance of architecture, but this view is
not shared by the entire organization. Organizations placed in this quadrant have
to ask themselves if their lack of concern with architecture is appropriate. So long
as they exist in a stable environment, it is possible to do without architecture.
The relevance of architecture only becomes evident when fundamental changes
are occurring or when the business operation is, perhaps gradually, becoming
increasingly more complex. The problem is that by the time such changes become
apparent, the need for architecture is often extremely acute. To avoid that crisis,
organizations in this quadrant should reflect a little and ask themselves if it might
not be wise to introduce architectural thinking.
Organizations in the losing quadrant face the key question what they wish to
accomplish by employing architecture.

An employee of a utility company has noticed that a proliferation of applications

has been created over the years. All these applications are linked to each other
in a most divergent manner, and data is continuously shuffled from right to left
and back again. This situation is a nearly inevitable consequence of the relaxed
culture dominant in the organization. When the business requires support from
an information system, an application manager or an IT employee is asked to
provide it. And they are happy to comply. No mechanism for coordination or
alignment has been put in place. Up to this point, everything has worked out
fine. But with the extensive changes that are expected in the next little while,
the employee sees a large continuity risk in this practice. He is convinced that
there has to be more coherence and structure in information management.
The employee in this example sees the dangers arising from the continuation
of the old practices: the information flows threaten to become so complex that
instituting the pending changes will be extremely difficult. He views architectural
thinking as a means of reducing complexity and, therefore, increasing flexibility.
 Chapter 5: A SWOT Analysis of the Process 65

However, this will require a substantial cultural turnaround. The employee

chooses a gradual route: he begins by closely examining data management. In
this way, he is soon able to identify a number of significant improvements. While
mobilizing his fellow workers to effect these improvements, he simultaneously
works on enhancing awareness within the organization. His goal is to broaden
the architecture one step at a time.

5.7 Enabling: Room for Quality

The level of architectural awareness and the degree of architectural integration

are both high in the enabling quadrant. The organization knows what it wants
in the way of architecture and accomplishes it. There is a clear purpose and
vision concerning architectural practice. The architectural initiatives are directly
linked to strategic issues and choices. It is natural for projects to comply with
architecture, not just because the life of the project manager is easier as a result,
but because such compliance assures the sponsor that the right solution to his or
her problem is chosen. Briefly stated, the architecture works and does what it is
supposed to do.

In a telecommunications company, the employment of architecture has become

standard practice. All business projects start with the drafting of a project-start
architecture. A team of eight business and IT architects develop the architecture
according to set plans and with fixed time frames. In this way, sponsors always
know precisely where they are in terms of planning. At any moment, the team
of architects is working on three project-start architectures. Every four weeks,
a new project-start architecture can be initiated. In formulating project-start
architectures, the architects work from a collective architecture framework. In
particular, this framework is concerned with integration aspects, as the company
works almost exclusively with software application packages. Due to the efficient
work procedures and predictable time frames, the department has gained a great
deal of credibility with business managers and is progressively more involved in
concept development.
Right from the start, this architecture department has focused on embedding
the architecture within the organization. The architects are involved in
development projects and, from this position, work on bringing architectural
thinking to a higher level. This was a good choice given the critical importance
66 Building an Enterprise Architecture Practice

in the telecommunications sector of reacting quickly to market developments.

Gradually, a clear and shared vision of architecture has been created and aligned
with the business strategy, as the company little by little enters the enabling
quadrant.

5.8 Learning from the Position in the Quadrant Model

In large organizations, it is not unusual to encounter characteristics from more

than one quadrant. A frequent combination involves both isolation and barrier.
For example, this combination will occur in organizations that not only have a
central architecture department operating as a discrete unit but also have the
business units performing one or more architecture functions. In such cases, the
central architecture department is primarily concerned with the translation of the
overall business strategy into rather abstract architectural models and principles
for the entire organization. Here, the greatest danger is isolation. The architects
working in the various business units are much more preoccupied with making
architectural choices to serve concrete business projects. They work primarily
from the bottom up, running the risk of entering the barrier quadrant, each unit
having its own architecture. If there is no link between the centralized architecture
and the architectures of the individual business units, this can result in a great deal
of mutual misunderstanding and acting at cross-purposes. This is unfortunate
because, if the two perspectives were combined instead of working in opposition
to each other, the organization would move a lot closer to the enabling quadrant.

The following example demonstrates that the Quadrant Model can help
subsidiaries learn from each other.
Two subsidiaries of the same international holding company have both
been using architecture for years. One followed a top-down approach in
its architectural practices and established a central architecture department.
Based on a vision for the business, architects successively developed a domain
architecture, process architecture, data architecture and application architecture.
These architectures have been well integrated but, in practice, project results
regularly turn out to be poorly compatible. In part, this appears to result from
the fact that a lot of reinterpretation is required in order to make concrete
project decisions based upon the architecture.
The second subsidiary employed an entirely different, bottom-up approach.
Because it became apparent that the business was not successfully engaging
 Chapter 5: A SWOT Analysis of the Process 67

in strategic discussions, it was decided to standardize the technical infrastructure.

Together with the specialists in this area, the architects formulated principles
and policies. Since the system developers are actively collaborating in the devel-
opment of architecture, its translation into projects occurs almost effortlessly.
Policy and implementation are in the same hands. Streamlining the technical
infrastructure is entirely successful, but the subsidiary does not succeed in taking
the next step to greater effectiveness. This would require the participation of
the business domain.
Positioning both subsidiaries in the Quadrant Model indicates that the first
one is in the isolation and the second in the barrier quadrant. Once they perceive
each other’s positioning, they immediately realize that they have a lot to offer
each other and could learn a great deal from a mutual exchange of experiences.
Both are enjoying partial success, but neither can make any further progress.
Since the one has what the other is lacking, they have a terrific opportunity to
exchange best practices and to learn from each other.

Plotting positions in the Quadrant Model proves to be, in practice, an extremely

effective means of recording the status of architecture in the organization. In
particular, it provides insight into the thought and action involved in architectural
practices. It holds a mirror up to the organization.

5.9 The DYA Model: Further Analysis of Thought and Action

The Quadrant Model can be used to reveal the balance between visionary content
and practical application. It indicates the sectors in which an organization’s
strengths and weaknesses lie in terms of its architectural practices. If the
organization senses that architecture is not delivering on its promises, then
plotting the architecture in its quadrant clearly demonstrates where things are out
of whack.
The DYA Model (Figure 5.3) can be used to further analyze the position
plotted in the Quadrant Model. The DYA Model analyzes the processes involved
in architectural practices. For those individuals directly involved in implementing
the architecture, this analysis provides insight into their roles as well as feedback
on the strengths and weaknesses of their performances.
An analysis using the DYA Model reveals the circumstances behind the
positioning in the Quadrant Model. An organization placed in the isolation
quadrant will have the relationship between Architectural Services and Strategic
Dialogue well in hand. The architecture is well aligned with the business strategy.
68 Building an Enterprise Architecture Practice

The relationship between Architectural Services and Development with(out)

Architecture is, however, too insubstantial. The resulting risk is that projects must
continually establish their own individual link to the business strategy, a process
resulting in a great deal of inefficiency.

Figure 5.3 DYA Model

For an organization in the barrier quadrant, the situation is reversed. In such a

case, the architecture function is generally well suited to Development with(out)
Architecture, but architecture plays hardly any role in the Strategic Dialogue. The
resulting danger is that the wrong investments may be made.
In the losing quadrant, all the DYA processes require improvement. In the
enabling quadrant, everything is in place, although fine tuning may still be
necessary.
Regardless of the quadrant in which an organization is placed, it is always
advisable to subject processes to careful examination. This can best be done by
the people directly involved. The DYA Model provides a frame of reference
with which to conduct such an analysis. An analysis based on this model yields
insight into the manner in which architectural practices are given substance in the
organization, each individual’s personal role in these practices and the blanks that
need to be filled in.
 Chapter 5: A SWOT Analysis of the Process 69

A good way to undertake this analysis involves a workshop for all those
involved with architecture: business and IT management, project managers,
architects and developers. This quickly yields positive results and has the additional
advantage of bringing people together in order to discuss existing work procedures.
Consequently, basic assumptions are often viewed in a new light.
The approach is as follows: the participants are divided into groups and are
given a part of the DYA Model printed on a large sheet of paper (see Figure 5.4
for an example); each part represents one of the processes (Strategic Dialogue,
Architectural Services or Development with(out) Architecture).

Figure 5.4 Part of the DYA Model for the sake of analysis
70 Building an Enterprise Architecture Practice

The groups are then required to visualize the relevant process, such as it is
currently being performed in the organization, and to describe it, including its
interfaces with other processes. Using cardboard cards in various shapes and colors,
felt pens and stickers, the situation can be effectively represented and visualized in
an easily understandable manner. Moreover, the use of such materials stimulates
thought. The groups work with the following concrete questions:

− How is the process currently being done?

− What is well done?

− What could be better?

Aspects that need to be examined are stakeholders, products, activities, triggers

and governance. The groups subsequently present the different processes to each
other. The resulting discussion can produce further refinements.

In a health-care institution that wants to make its use of architecture more

effective, powerful and professional, one of the first steps involves holding a
workshop for management, architects and developers in order to examine how
the DYA processes are being performed. Analyzing the process of Development
with(out) Architecture yields the following results:

− Development with Architecture is performed by the central strategy

department. This works well, not because the organization has included
architecture in a standard approach to development, because it has not, but
only because they informally share working methods. In brief, its success
here is strongly dependent on people. The decentralized development in
other parts of the institution largely takes place without architecture.

− The Architectural Services process is not explicitly present in the institution.

According to the participants, this process is actually more or less incor-
porated into the Development-with-Architecture process. Architecture is
created in the context of, and as a part of, projects.

− It is unclear what the governing rules are: who, for example, actually
determines what the architecture is?

The participants draw the diagram presented in Figure 5.5.

 Chapter 5: A SWOT Analysis of the Process 71

Decentral departments (+ development team)

DwoA

-Central
change Development team
programs
-Central
Strategic Project has started DwA
department Unified method
of work
positions
SD architecture
within the
organization
AS

AS No
Strong distiction
representation

Figure 5.5 Analysis of development with(out) architecture

What is well done?

− There is clear input from Strategic Dialogue.

− Participants are architecturally aware (especially the central strategy

department).

What could be better?

− Develop architecture before a project starts (instead of during the project).

− Make architecture more explicit.

− Set up a form of governance.

In closing the workshop, the following conclusions are drawn:

− For employees of the central strategy department, architecture is primarily

an implicit concern. They operate according to informal frameworks and
an implicit sense of quality. There is no explicit architecture function and
no collective framework.
72 Building an Enterprise Architecture Practice

− The participants express a clear longing for an architecture in the form of

an explicit and shared frame of reference on the basis of which to perform
their duties. This frame of reference should contain criteria that projects
must satisfy.

− The central strategy department mostly operates in a reactive manner,

whereas a more proactive approach is desirable.

The analysis of processes, undertaken in a workshop, results in a better

understanding among stakeholders of the factors that play a role in the effective
application of architecture. It also shows them their roles in its application and
the strengths and weaknesses in their own organization.

5.10 From Insight to Improvement

The Quadrant Model and the DYA Model are tools to provide insight into an
organization’s strengths and weaknesses insofar as its employment of architecture
is concerned. In particular, they clarify the balance between the architecture’s
alignment with business strategy and its relevance to projects. They promote
understanding and can show where improvements are most needed.
For organizations wishing to make their architectural practices more effective
and professional, we will provide an instrument in the next chapter to devise
improvements suited to the circumstances of any particular organization. In
essence this instrument, the Architecture Maturity Matrix, not only identifies the
improvements to be made but also supports them by setting priorities in such a
way that both thought and action receive proper attention. All this is done while
keeping in mind that not everything can be done at once, nor needs to be.

5.11 SWOT Analysis at B-Sure Bank

It is one year since the merger, and B-Sure Bank is “still going strong.” The
shake-up has reached its conclusion, at least organizationally. All departments
having similar roles have been combined into shared service centers. These are
divided into Banking, Insurance and Investment. Due to the importance that the
bank attaches to its customer relations, a separate Relations Management division
 Chapter 5: A SWOT Analysis of the Process 73

has been created, which distinguishes between business and consumer clients on
account of the difference in approach. All IT services have been removed from
the various divisions and concentrated in the IT division. Figure 5.6 represents
the new organizational chart.

Figure 5.6 New organizational chart for B-Sure Bank

In terms of processes and information systems, there is still a long way to go.
But things are on the right track. In the technical arena, a communication bus
has been established. It is the intention that all interaction between applications
will occur by means of this bus. The first application will soon be connected to it.
Fifteen architects work as a team in the Architecture department. They are
subdivided into business/information architects (7) and technical architects (8).
They are responsible for the architecture of the B-Sure Bank.
Until now, the architects have produced a number of architectural
distributables, which have been placed on the intranet:

− an overall B-Sure Bank enterprise architecture;

− a B-Sure Bank process model;

− a services model indicating the generic application services;

− guidelines for data modeling;

− guidelines for platform choices;

− guidelines for package selection and implementation;

74 Building an Enterprise Architecture Practice

− an application architecture for Insurance;

− a business architecture for Banking.

All the architecture documents are now formally approved prior to publication.
Approvals are performed by an architecture board consisting of the IT director
and the directors of Banking, Insurance, Investment and Relations Management.
The board is chaired by the director of Insurance and bears the responsibility
for the developments in the architectural field at B-Sure Bank. The architecture
board meets twice a year. Besides approving any architectural documents that
have been produced, the board can issue assignments concerning the development
of architectural principles and models in specific areas. For example, they have
recently assigned the task of developing data architecture.
In addition to being given assignments by the architecture board, the architects
also develop architectural artifacts on their own initiative. They do this in response
to business developments but also as a result of developments in the field of IT.
The 15 architects are spread over four divisions, with a team of around four
architects maintaining contact with each division. Each team handles this contact
in its own manner. For example, every month the team for Banking has an
informal lunch with the division’s Information Manager. At these lunches, they
discuss new developments. In Investment, contact occurs on a more personal
basis: each architect has his or her own contacts in Investment and, whenever
there is something to report or ask, they call each other up. Someone from the
team for Relations Management knows the director of Relations Management
well, and contact is primarily maintained through this channel. And in Insurance,
contact mainly occurs between a member of the architecture team and the head
of the Information Management department.
The idea is for projects to comply with the architectures. When a new
architecture document is produced, it is brought to the attention of project
managers by means of a newsletter. In practice, not all projects adhere to the
architecture.
To make it easier for projects to comply with the architecture, architects
together with a delegation of project managers and information analysts have
carefully examined the quality of architectural products during a two-day retreat.
Improvements have been made. An agreement has been reached to organize a
similar gathering every year, as it has become evident that some changes tend to
be overlooked in the course of daily events. For instance, outdated components
are not being cleared out.
The architecture team is subdivided into two groups: the business/information
architects and the technical architects. Both groups have separate biweekly
 Chapter 5: A SWOT Analysis of the Process 75

meetings. During these gatherings, everyone briefly reports on his or her work
activities. Additionally, as a regular part of these meetings, one of the architects
elaborates on what he or she is doing at that moment and which issues are being
addressed. Concerns raised in such talks include, for example, the approach being
used, the projected results, and also the fundamental choices that must be made.
This is subsequently discussed in somewhat more detail. In this way, architects
keep each other informed about what they are doing, and help each other out.
Of course, they regularly consult with each other outside of these meetings,
but this is often limited to contacts between the same people. The complete
architecture team has monthly departmental meetings. These are mostly devoted
to announcements from higher up, housekeeping items, important developments
in the organization and sometimes a presentation by one of the architects.
At B-Sure Bank, clear steps have been taken in the architectural domain. Still,
Arnold Hedges, the head of the Architecture department, is convinced that more
can be gained from architecture – he is just not sure what or where. In order to
substantiate his theory, he has decided to perform an Architectural Review to plot
the situation at B-Sure Bank on the Quadrant Model. He provides the following
responses to the Review’s 12 statements:

Table 5.2 Architectural Review for B-Sure Bank

No. Statement Yes/No

1 In our organization, architecture is a part of the management agenda Yes

2 A new version of our organization’s architecture has been issued in recent years Yes
3 Architects and business representatives are in regular contact with each other Yes
4 I think that at least half of the architectural initiatives in our organization have a No
business sponsor
5 I know which director is responsible for architecture Yes
6 Our architectural process is regularly evaluated No
7 I think that at least a quarter of the organization has immediate access to the most Yes
recent version of the architecture
8 In our organization, architecture plays an important role in decisions about No
projects
9 An architect is involved in at least half of the projects at our organization No
10 Our architects have a customer-focused attitude Yes
11 Completion of a project is only acknowledged after an architectural review has No
been performed on the project
12 Non-compliance with architecture results at least in being asked to justify the No
non-compliance
76 Building an Enterprise Architecture Practice

Figure 5.7 Position of B-Sure Bank in the Quadrant Model

Translation of the answers into the Quadrant Model yields the diagram in
Figure 5.7.
The level of architectural thinking is clearly better developed than is the
integration of the architecture into the organization. This accords well with
Arnold’s intuition: the Strategic Dialogue occurs as it should, but the link with
development could be better. He decides to devote a workshop to this subject,
inviting a delegation of people involved in the change processes at B-Sure Bank.
The directors, management, architects and developers will be represented. The
objective is to determine if they agree with Arnold’s analysis and to investigate the
architectural processes somewhat more deeply. This is arranged, and the delegates
meet on a Thursday morning. First of all, Arnold has everyone complete the
Architectural Review with the 12 statements. The answers are then compared and,
after some discussion, they unanimously adopt a view that confirms Arnold’s.
Subsequently, the group is divided into three subgroups, and each is given a
board with one of the DYA processes drawn on it. The task is to indicate how the
relevant process is being conducted at B-Sure Bank, what is done well and what
could be done better. The results are represented in Figures 5.8 through 5.10.
The common conclusion is that the relationship with projects is currently
the weakest point in the architecture function. Projects must find their own way
in the architecture domain. The relationship is strongly reactive and could be
somewhat more proactive. Furthermore, they arrive at the conclusion that the
mutual collaboration, alignment and exchange of knowledge could be better. The
architecture board functions fairly well, but more use could be made of it. For
instance, ideas for the development of architecture could be discussed by the
architecture board at a much earlier stage.
 Chapter 5: A SWOT Analysis of the Process 77

Figure 5.8 Development with(out) Architecture at B-Sure Bank

78 Building an Enterprise Architecture Practice

Figure 5.9 Architectural Services at B-Sure Bank

 Chapter 5: A SWOT Analysis of the Process 79

Figure 5.10 Strategic Dialogue at B-Sure Bank